Have It Your Way — What Makes Architecture Successful
Universal appeal doesn't exist in design. The real beauty of any home lies in individualization and imagination
Eric Spry is a Houzz Contributor, architect (http://www.spryarch.com) and blogger living in Phoenix, Arizona
Eric Spry is a Houzz Contributor, architect (http://www.spryarch.com) and... More »
| Share: |
|
The architect's job is not to use the client as a means to accomplish his or her own creations, but to design a celebration of the client's life by meeting all the necessary program requirements with creativity and imagination. A piece of architecture can look great in a magazine, but if it does not meet the client's needs in a beautiful and functional way, it has failed.
How does one create architecture that is successful? The answer lies in its very purpose.
How does one create architecture that is successful? The answer lies in its very purpose.
|
by DWYER DESIGN
»
Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| First, by way of background, I participated in a Houzz ideabook discussion centered around some unusual elements of a project I had recently completed. The design was provocative and elicited many comments, some kind and some not. As much as I appreciate a compliment, I was most absorbed by the comments that began, "If this were my house, I would have … " Or, "If it were me, I’d have done … " This unearthed a common stereotype of an architect’s work: that we are arrogant egomaniacs who bully clients into building our own visions. I will consent that those architects do indeed exist (that sentence may have just cost me any future American Institute of Architects membership), and I often have to fight back this stereotype early on in my client relationships. But instead of discussing stereotypes, let’s discuss what architecture should be. My response to these comments? Of course. Of course it would be different. Of course it would reflect you. If I were a musician, and person A from a small town in Michigan hired me to write a piece of music that was a celebration of her life, that piece of music would be significantly different than a piece of music written to celebrate the life of person B, who lives in Los Angeles. That is how it should be, and architecture is simply frozen music (or so said Johann Wolfgang von Goethe). |
by Bruce Wright
»
Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
Too often a work of architecture is judged unfairly because it is assumed to be the product of an ego-driven architect bullying a client into building the architect's vision. But the best architecture is in fact a product of a client willing to share his or her eccentricities and an architect who is willing to incorporate those eccentricities into a unique and imaginative structure.
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| As I said in my comments, if this were your home, perhaps the fireplace shown here would be wrapped in steel. If the home belonged to Colonel Sanders, the fireplace could be wrapped in chicken feathers. |
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| That's the beauty of architecture: individualization. A detail that provokes a personal thought or feeling for the homeowner. |
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| This floor plan is for a client who dislikes right angles. In her own words: "If my home has a single right angle, I will be very unhappy." What an architect misses by not picking up on a client’s small eccentricities is an opportunity for individualization that will make the architecture special and bring it to life. |
| Architecture is not about perfect universal solutions. Those don't exist. It's about solutions appropriate to the context of the project. The context is the client's needs, site conditions, climate, budget and so on. |
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| I love this example of individualization, because it looks like a child in a giant washing machine. Architecture is almost always best viewed through the eyes of a child's imagination. |
| Like it? Save it to your Ideabook »
|
| I love the giraffe head in this home because it adds a whimsy to the space that reflects the client's humor. It's amusing, and modern architecture often takes itself far too seriously. And I love the stone fireplace in the third photo from the top because the stone is personal to the homeowner, a piece of her past. The stone makes that house her home. That is architecture. |
Ideabook updated on Jan. 3, 2013.
Latest Ideabooks
People found the photos in this ideabook after searching for:
View over a million photos:
Find Local Pros by Category:
Architects & Designers · Carpet and Flooring · Closet & Home Storage Designers · Design-build Firms · Fireplaces · General Contractors · Home Media Design & Installation · Interior Designers & Decorators · Kitchen & Bath Designers · Landscape Architects & Designers · Landscape Contractors · Specialty Contractors · Tile, Stone & Countertops
Find Local Pros by Metro Area:
Atlanta · Austin · Baltimore · Boston · Chicago · Dallas · Dc Metro · Denver · Detroit · Hawaii · Houston · Las Vegas · Los Angeles · Miami · Minneapolis · Nashville · New Orleans · New York · Philadelphia · Phoenix · Portland · Salt Lake City · San Diego · San Francisco · Seattle · St Louis
( A children's book, you can google it) Well I gave that book to that hostile neighbor. A couple months later, I noticed he painted his car camouflage (he works at a prestigious job for the City) lol. So this was odd/interesting. I asked him what made him paint his car. He said "I've always wanted to do this and I wanted to step outside the box also, like you did". His car is still painted that color till this day. Maybe he is waiting for me to paint me house pink ; )
As for the critics of your work - you've summed it excellently. That your work only ever has to please your current client in order to have been well done.
I think many of the negative stereotypes come from the mythical stories surrounding famous architects like Frank Lloyd Wright and others. In reality, the city of Phoenix (for example) is full of talented architects who are great to work with. It's very important for a client to find an architect that they are comfortable with and trust. Some want a white collar architect who wears a tie and drives an expensive car, some want their architect in blue jeans driving a pick up truck.
But understand, most architects do indeed want what's best for the client. If an architect is self-centered, not client focused, it should be clear in the initial meetings.
I wouldn't know what to call it either (the house in the hillside), I chose the image because it was unusual...House in Hillside may be the best option...
Also "liked" and commented in the LinkedIn Architecture & Planning newsfeed and it was added to the activity on my LinkedIn profile.
The homeowner's personalization.
http://www.planikafires.com/news/2012/12/11/dotprojekt/
I had the lovely experience of design pro that want to use my checkbook to fulfill their vision. I wanted a loft with a spiral staircase, he thought that a second bedroom was better and spirals are hard for children to negotiate (I don't have any). I just kept piercing the wall, bigger door, an over look... and then took care of it in post production; the framer oversized a post and beam and my sawzall and I cut a hole. And if a prefab staircase shows up the subs install it.
@ Casart Coverings - love this comment "It seems to me that what you espouse-to meet the client's needs and not self-aggrandizement -should be the goal of everyone in a service-related business."
Entirely true. Architecture is service; service to a homeowner, community, culture (if they are large scale civil projects).
Also, I agree, you cannot discount the individual aesthetics of the architect and those aesthetics should not be compromised. The imagination and creativity of the architect is part of the service the architect offers, bringing the project to life.
Interesting question...does an architect have an obligation to walk away from a project if the aesthetics are being compromised to a point that he or she knows the work of architecture will fail, or will not function, and he or she is not able to convince the client otherwise?
Where is that line?
If something is just ugly, but it works, I wouldn't call it an obligation! I do feel they have the right to not compromise aesthetic values, but there are also some architects who look at their skill-set as a responsibility.
It is they with the knowledge to construct the world around us, so they willingly sacrifice their elevated sensibilities.
While some people might say "If this was my house I would have ....." this is fine too. They are becoming involved in the design and out of discussion new perspectives are formulated which has that person thinking about how they would like their own home to be designed and of course by an Architect.
Let me know how you get on with membership of the Architects Association!
Garry
How can an architect get egotistical when s/he is learning so much about the client's needs? Form follows function! D
I had to build a storage loft in one customer's garage because the architect we were working with only cared about the outside of the house and put no storage closets in the entire 20,000 sq.ft. home except for the clothes closets in the 4 bedrooms and the walk-in food pantry in the kitchen.
No space for them to store luggage, Christmas decorations, winter clothes, or anything else a normal family uses to raise kids and have some fun.
When we asked him about it, the architect said 'His Designs' reflected the austerity of a person dedicated completely to their work! He had never raised any kids so he really had no practical experience in doing so.
My motto has always been to provide service that reflects client's needs, and I believe we can tell at the beginning, while the perimeters of the project are being established, whether we can work together or not. The chemistry between the architect and the client has to work, because only then will we have a happy and a proud client while at the same time, we have not compromised our aesthetic values.
Yes, I think architecture is about tuning in with the clients. There should be a satisfaction award really! To me it feels that today architecture is more about pretty pictures and dramatic effects. As you said it so well: 'the answer to successful architecture lies in its very purpose"... I would add : yes, like in everything , what matters is the reason why we do what we do.
I have decided to become an artist so I would be able to put my visions somewhere and as an architect, I can focus on providing a response to a place for the human beings who are going to occupy it, which is a very different purpose indeed.
It finally clicked with me when I really "SAW" her house. I noticed how traditional, monochromatic, edited and neat everything was. I was using plants with a lot of color and texture because that's the stuff previous clients really liked. My arrogance almost caused me and the contractor to lose a client and get messy. In the end it turned out really good. I hope to get better pictures this year. I think Houzz can help me in the future and also help potential clients and professionals get a jump on the communication with the “look” of projects and ideas.
Yes, the client is who the design needs to be based around. Their ideas and expectations need to be designed for. However, this does not mean you should compromise on the functionality or aesthetics. The client has come to you for your professional advice, no doubt after seeing your work previously. I find that the best houses are created when the client comes with a good brief and then lets you design around it using your skills as the architect or designer. A good architect should be able to compromise with their client and still deliver a great product.
We have one family who have been living in one of our houses for the last 40 years, with the only changes being an upgrade to their kitchen and bathrooms - below is a link to a recent article about the house.
http://porebskiarchitects.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/125.jpg
I do admit that it is refreshing as a building/landscape designer to step outside the box :-)
www.kmluxuryhomes.com
I am AmIn
A 3d/interrior designer
How can I be a great interrior designer?
That said, I'd find this more compelling if there were any examples--in this article and from current architects--of designs *other* than modern! I find that the sentiment among architects (as stated above) is largely "we are here to bust traditional." Well, what is wrong with traditional, if that is your music, to borrow your metaphor? I would think that a truly good architect can play a wide range of styles, not just Chick Corea, but also Copeland. Some of us out there really don't want grey and white steel and glass buildings. It seems like every picture that I see that is a promotion of great architecture seems to be stuck in the Bauhaus.
So, I will go on record to say that I would only choose an architect whose portfolio reflected the ability to build something other than a single style. Otherwise, that's a clear signal that this person would only be able to express others' vision through the lens of their own preferences.
Generally speaking, architects are specialists, not general practitioners (there are always exceptions, of course). But would you see a podiatrist for a pair of glasses or an optometrist for a foot problem? To further your analogy, Patricia, does Chick Corea write Classical? Did Copeland play Jazz?
An artist specializes in a style.
If I wanted a great piece of Jazz written for my daughter's wedding, I wouldn't hire Copeland, I'd hire Chick Corea. If I wanted a symphony written or a classical soundtrack for a film, I wouldn't hire Chick Corea, I'd hire Copeland.
If a client wanted a traditional styled home, they'd be best served by hiring an architect who specializes in that style of home, not a general practitioner type of architect who designs in multiple styles. I've redirected many phone calls to other architects in town who design Tuscan and Mediterranean homes far better than I. Can I design a Tuscan? Sure. But they do it better because that style is their specialty. So, in service to the client, I direct them to another architect. Other architects have done the same, directing clients to me who want a modern home.
When a client hires an architect, in part, because they love the architects aesthetic style, the relationship is immediately off to a good start, a solid understanding.
The points I made in the article above are "post-hire". Among the many attributes a potential client should look for in their architect prior to hiring is an agreement of style.
Architects are not really specialists by that definition, and what a bleak future we face if we are only to be defined by style anyway.
I know many who can successfully undertake projects in virtually any style, and do it very well - in part because building methods havent really advanced very far for over 100 years - so we have been free to "stylise" at will. Only the technological methods of presentation and handling data have changed radically (i.e that would require of architects a degree of "specialisation"), plus obviously a heightened awareness of what impacts our choices have both locally and globally. The real challenge for the profession is tackling critical issues like climate change, and by application, designing thoughtfully with energy-efficiency as one of our highest ideals. That can be achieved via any style if it considered carefully, and clients are encouraged (not coerced) into considering if their ideals can be met with more modestly sized homes that are well orientated to their site.
Wright said that there should be as many styles of houses as there are styles of people. I agree with that. This is not an issue of what styles are relevant and which are not.
However, if a client wants a Tuscan home, I believe they would be best served by hiring someone who specializes in Tuscan homes.
Would one hire Richard Meier to design a Spanish Colonial?
True, one should choose an architect with whom they are compatible. Also, the architect should listen and respond to their client's needs and wishes without question. However, each architect responds differently with their designs than others. I personally hate the word style because I find it limiting and polarizing.
I don't know what traditional is and I can't exactly define modern. My work tends towards the latter I'm told, but I don't think in style nor do I like the term. I truly try to respond to each site condition and that includes the existing "style". Sometime the architect gets the chance to transform a house from one 'style' to a truly new representation as we see in Eric's Black House. Nevertheless, one should hire an architect whom they feel can get them to their goals, desires and wishes.
But don't ask a classical composer to play rock-a-billy. Why did you hire that architect in the first place? Are you going to move their hand for them or are you going to let them do what they do best?
As a graphic designer, it is my job to find out what the customer wants and to give them that within the realm of possibility. However, the customer often doesn't know what they want until I present them with something they would never have thought of. I think all designing has that in common.
And when the customer demanded something which I knew would not work well, in my situation I had to go with it. Fortunately my work is much more euphemoral than architecture and mostly disappears into dustbins.
Now we are half way through the build and discovering all sorts of problems. The bathrooms are too small, the ceiling level in the kitchen is too low, one room has a huge vaulted ceiling which will make it very difficult to heat, etc.
My husband says we have only ourselves to blame for not reading the plans more carefully, but we are not architects, that's why we engaged one. Should you get a second and possibly a third opinion just to check the first architect has got it right?
Another problem I have found is saying that something can't be done, when in fact it can be. The contractor or architect just doesn't want to do it, maybe thinks it isn't a good idea, but doesn't explain that to the client.
What I'll say now though is the three most important attributes of the client / architect relationship is COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION.
This was a good reminder that what would be terrible design for me might be great for someone else.
For example, having worked some long days on my feet in retail and factory jobs, just looking at beautiful polished concrete floors makes my legs hurt. I think how cold they'd be in Canadian winters unless they have in-floor heating, and as a pet owner they make me cringe, thinking of the strain they put dogs' hips.
But when Houzz featured them in the home of a wheelchair user suddenly I could see how, and for whom, they could be beautifully functional.
The cool, spare, massive concrete and steel boxes typical of modern architecture may be as suitable an environment for me as a fishbowl is for a cat. But before I dismiss them, I should remember that the inhabitant of a fishbowl is probably a fish.
I would say that where I respectfully disagree is to align architecture too strictly with music/art. I see art and music as the ultimate expression of the individual's worldview, representing reality in specific, individualized ways, capturing emotional landscapes, conveying feelings. While all of this is something that architecture can do... it strays into narcissism the more it embodies individualistic expression--at least when we are talking about residential architecture. I don't think that's necessarily the case for commercial architecture. For example, if you look into the story behind Frank Lloyd Wright Darwin Martin House in Buffalo, NY, you'll learn that while Darwin Martin loved the house as a status symbol of his wealth and influence, his wife hated it. Wright had extremely specific ideas where everything should go--lowered ceilings in the living room where seating would be, cave-like dens for a study, etc. Also, from a practical *systems* point of view, his houses don't really perform well.
So I would say that FLW is an artist first, architect second.
For most people, it would seem natural to pick an architect whose works tend to show a style that they can relate to, because it is on the surface. However, what I think makes a brilliant architect is someone who first and foremost addresses the site and the client's living needs through the medium of architectural principles, and from there applies "style layer." Architecture can integrate with visual design certainly, but it doesn't rely on it. You can have, for example, an impressive entryway that feels spacious and draws the eye toward an ocean view upon entering it...and accomplish this same thing using either traditional or modern elements, for example. The main effect still stays the same. And this is only one aspect, not to mention mechanical, alternative building methodologies, energy efficiency & HVAC, smart design...the entire living experience. Anyhow, I don't see the comparison between rockabilly vs classical music applicable here at all--and in fact, it you want to take it to that level, check out Chris Botti--who plays an amazing trumpet, both pop, jazz and classical. This is because he understands the fundamental principles of music, and can express the beauty of his instrument through a variety of styles.